Freeman-o-lution
OK, I think that everyone who saw the entire Freeman situation entirely through this lens.
1.Chas Freeman says heterodox stuff about Israel 2. Steve Rosen, Josh Block, Martin Kramer and Michael Goldfarb blow everything out of proportion and spread various about him 3. Charles Schumer and other Israel hawks sink the nomination
Should probably reevalutate that stance in light of Michael Isikoff’s reporting that, ultimately, it was Nancy Pelosi who squashed the nomination in light of Freeman’s rather blood curdling thoughts on Tiananmen Square.
Look, the undoing of Chas Freeman was an overdetermined event. Had the only thing wrong with him had been his statements on Israel, then the carping of his critics would have gained no traction. Sure, people who are already tooth-and-nail opposed to Obama’s foreign policy agenda would have brought up these concerns, and no one would have listened to them. But because Freeman made himself an easy target — for totally legitimate, non-Israel based reasons (fondness for Saudi Arabia) — anyone who had an issue with him could bring up all sorts of objections and he was subsequently done with.
Once again, I don’t think we’ve lost much by not having Freeman in the government. The cases where the Israel Lobby, or to make everything sound less ominous, the hawkish pro-Israel community, is able to exert influence in appointments and policy making specific to Israel (or to the Middle East more generally), we should be concerned.
